Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Is remaining alive the goal of all values?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Hello everyone! I am currently studying objectivism and trying to validate its ideas on my own. At the moment I am reading OPAR and taking the time to chew the ideas and to really understand the key concepts behind Rand's philosophy. I'm done with metaphysics and epistemology, but I'm having some difficulty trying to understand the beginning of ethics. I would appreciate if someone could clarify a few things for me...

 

 

In OPAR, Leonard Peikoff says the following:

 

"An organism's life is the standard of value: that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil."

 

"Objectivism says that remaining alive is the goal of values and of all proper action."

 

But I don't see how remaining alive is the goal of values. It makes more sense to me the fact that remaining alive is the precondition to all other values, but not their goal. I understand that some values are means to remain alive, but only some. I eat in order to stay alive, I get that. And in order to get food I need to work, I get that. But I don't work only to buy food in order to stay alive, I work because it makes me feel good, because I love it, because it allows me to buy things that, not only allow me to stay alive (such as food, shelter, doctor consultations, etc), but things that give me pleasure. Sex is a value to me, and I don't do it because I want to remain alive, I do it because I derive pleasure from it. Traveling the world is a value to me, and yet I don't do it in order to stay alive, but because I like to. Driving a nice car, listening to good music, watching good movies, appreciating good art - none of these values are means to remaining alive. One will not die if he refrained from these values. The only values that a man needs to be alive are nutritious food, water, shelter, sleep and some exercise. Metaphysically speaking a man can remain alive for a lifetime by keeping only these values.

 

So It makes more sense to me that happiness and pleasure should be the goal of all values. Does anyone also thinks like this?

 

For instance, I would rather live 30 years HAPPY (pursuing my values and deriving rational pleasure from them) than 100 years practicing only the few actions that will make me remain alive (eating, exercising regularly, sleeping, etc).

 

By this sentence: "...that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil", it seems like the important thing is not the quality of a mans life (how happy he is while he is alive) but rather how long he remains alive. So lying in a hospital bed being fed by intravenous juices would be the climax of the morally good if it makes me live 100 years? 

 

I would really appreciate different views on this subject. I am curious to know what everyone here thinks about this.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I don't see how remaining alive is the goal of values. It makes more sense to me the fact that remaining alive is the precondition to all other values, but not their goal. I understand that some values are means to remain alive, but only some. I eat in order to stay alive, I get that. And in order to get food I need to work, I get that. But I don't work only to buy food in order to stay alive, I work because it makes me feel good, because I love it, because it allows me to buy things that, not only allow me to stay alive (such as food, shelter, doctor consultations, etc), but things that give me pleasure. Sex is a value to me, and I don't do it because I want to remain alive, I do it because I derive pleasure from it. Traveling the world is a value to me, and yet I don't do it in order to stay alive, but because I like to. Driving a nice car, listening to good music, watching good movies, appreciating good art - none of these values are means to remaining alive. One will not die if he refrained from these values. The only values that a man needs to be alive are nutritious food, water, shelter, sleep and some exercise. Metaphysically speaking a man can remain alive for a lifetime by keeping only these values.

You are over-simplifying human nature. It's not true that happiness, pleasure, self esteem, etc. don't contribute to keeping a human being alive.

First, nutritious food, water, shelter, sleep and exercise aren't a given. A person has to be in the right state of mind to obtain/perform those things. There are plenty of people who don't eat correctly, don't take care of themselves, can't sleep and don't exercise, even though they could. Why do you think that is? Don't you think it might have something to do with all those things you dismissed as irrelevant to staying alive?

Second, while probably less significant than nutrition and shelter, there is even a direct relationship between physical health and a person's state of mind. I doubt that if you took someone prisoner and sheletered them, fed them all the right things, made them exercise the right way and go to bed at the right time, they would stay alive as long as a happy, free person who did the same.

P.S. My second argument isn't as strong as the first, and there's a lot less empirical evidence behind it. So please don't focus on it at the expense of the first point I made.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

MarceloMartins, welcome to the forum. You are quite right to include all of the a fore mentioned indulgences of "the good life." As an Objectivist, your life is your highest value. As this pertains to ethics, the means to this "good life" is a necessary consideration. If you've earned every penny as a self-made success, no rational person would deny you your right to all that makes you happy. As long as you've acquired to means of your life through no immoral means, you're good to go! I would also include on the list of luxuries, a sense of pride. If you are the lucky heir/heiress to great wealth, you may indeed consume an a level that would make some people envious. In such a case, I hope that is sufficient for a happy life, but I tend to think that most people would like to add some accomplishment to their life, something that provides a sense of fulfillment beyond merely living large. (I have heard of people with huge inheritance, and they are NOT HAPPY! I seriously doubt this is true. They could easily enough try living in poverty to see if that makes them happy.)

I would like to stress this point: Your "sense of life" is going to be different from anyone else. As an individual, you must decide what it is that would secure the best results for your life, and then decide your actions in achieving those results. Sure, eat, sleep, exercise, basically, don't deprive yourself of the basics that sustain health, as a means to life. For happiness, one must determine for one's self what the key to that happiness is. If world travel, the arts, and gratuitous sex with consenting adults makes your life a greater experience, by all moral means, do it. Man lives for his own sake.

The primary violation is the acquisition of wealth by immoral means, or initiating harm on someone else. I hope this was helpful, and I concur with Nicky. Incidentally, what is OPAR?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

First, nutritious food, water, shelter, sleep and exercise aren't a given. A person has to be in the right state of mind to obtain/perform those things. There are plenty of people who don't eat correctly, don't take care of themselves, can't sleep and don't exercise, even though they could. Why do you think that is? Don't you think it might have something to do with all those things you dismissed as irrelevant to staying alive?

 

Yes, a person who has low self esteem, and who is having difficulty obtaining her values will probably lack the will to keep track of their healthy habits. That is correct. I understand that these fundamental necessities aren't a given, they are values one has to gain/keep if they want to remain alive. My point is that THESE are the values that directly affect one's survival. The "end" of other values (such as a career, romantic love, luxuries) is not to remain alive but to derive pleasure/happiness from it.

 

If I ask you "why did you eat that dessert?" or "why did you attend that play?", you will not answer: "I did it in order to remain alive", but rather: "because It allows me to enjoy my life more". 

 

Every time I discuss and think about this issue, it gets more and more clear to me that the ultimate goal (which all other lesser goals are means to) is not merely to remain alive but to enjoy your time alive and be happy. Obviously remaining alive is a precondition, but merely remaining alive is not the ultimate goal. 

 

 

MarceloMartins, welcome to the forum. You are quite right to include all of the a fore mentioned indulgences of "the good life." As an Objectivist, your life is your highest value. As this pertains to ethics, the means to this "good life" is a necessary consideration. If you've earned every penny as a self-made success, no rational person would deny you your right to all that makes you happy. As long as you've acquired to means of your life through no immoral means, you're good to go! I would also include on the list of luxuries, a sense of pride. If you are the lucky heir/heiress to great wealth, you may indeed consume an a level that would make some people envious. In such a case, I hope that is sufficient for a happy life, but I tend to think that most people would like to add some accomplishment to their life, something that provides a sense of fulfillment beyond merely living large. (I have heard of people with huge inheritance, and they are NOT HAPPY! I seriously doubt this is true. They could easily enough try living in poverty to see if that makes them happy.)

I would like to stress this point: Your "sense of life" is going to be different from anyone else. As an individual, you must decide what it is that would secure the best results for your life, and then decide your actions in achieving those results. Sure, eat, sleep, exercise, basically, don't deprive yourself of the basics that sustain health, as a means to life. For happiness, one must determine for one's self what the key to that happiness is. If world travel, the arts, and gratuitous sex with consenting adults makes your life a greater experience, by all moral means, do it. Man lives for his own sake.

The primary violation is the acquisition of wealth by immoral means, or initiating harm on someone else. I hope this was helpful, and I concur with Nicky. Incidentally, what is OPAR?

 

Repairman, I actually agreed to everything you said but you kind of drifted away from the initial point. What should be the ultimate goal, merely remaining alive, or, being happy while you are alive? OPAR is Dr. Peikoff's book "Objectivism the Philosophy of Ayn Rand". 

Edited by MarceloMartins
Link to comment
Share on other sites

MM: Thanks for clarifying the book title; that is one I have yet to read. I apologize if my answer seems vague, but really, the ultimate goal of your life is yours to determine. Remaining alive is a means to higher achievement, be that fulfillment through pleasure, or fulfillment through some constructive purpose, or both. Certainly, you would not be enjoying the most recent films, or other forms of entertainment if you were dead. Neither could you create the ideal life.

What is the ideal life? That, you must decide.

If survival were the only goal, that would suggest that you were in a very desperate situation. In that case, staying alive would demand survival skills, and actions. If you have greater opportunity, such as that provided by a rational (we can wish) civilization, you very likely could accomplish much more with the right skills and actions. Both scenarios require a mental effort, because that is man's primary tool of survival, the mind. So, I suppose the simplest way to state it is: stay alive until greater opportunity emerges. For a full life, one must take the actions of one's own volition required for that full life. If you know that your actions are bringing you closer to your goals, you can be content, perhaps even happy, with the knowledge that you are getting there. You could say that this is man's natural right to the "pursuit of happiness."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I apologize if my answer seems vague, but really, the ultimate goal of your life is yours to determine.

 

Well, not according to Dr. Peikoff. He says "Objectivism says that remaining alive is the goal of values and of all proper action."

 

You see, I agree with you Repairman. I just want to understand the reasons behind Peikoff's view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, not according to Dr. Peikoff. He says "Objectivism says that remaining alive is the goal of values and of all proper action."

 

You see, I agree with you Repairman. I just want to understand the reasons behind Peikoff's view.

Dr. Peikoff was emphasizing a metaphysical point. In practical application the world rapidly presents us with choices that contain complex interrelations, and/or consequences that require trade-offs. He is urging one to 'keep your eye on the ball' so to speak and watch for situations where you might be tempted to trade a very real risk to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness for a shorter term goal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Life" is the standard.  Notwithstanding isolated quotations, It is more complex than mere survival.

 

The fact is there is both 1. quantity and 2. quality of life.  Remaining alive implicitly ensures or extends 1, but sometimes risks which impinge upon 1 are properly taken to preserve 2.

 

I believe Rand herself spoke of risking one's life for a person of great value (like a loved one).  Such illustrates risking quantity for quality, (hopefully risk succeeds and in the end both obtain).  In most real world situations it is rare one actually has to chose one over the other.

 

A product of 1 and 2 seem to be more what I think the overall realistic assessment of "Life" as the standard is.

 

 

I'm not sure where I heard it but a parent who choses to risk a high probability of death (to occur say 30 seconds after making the choice) to save a drowning son in icy waters, is not making a sacrifice IF those 30 seconds knowing the child is safe or had the best chance possible is worth more (because of the value of the child to the parent), than 60 years living in pain and regret without the child... and added to that the probability of surviving with the child..  makes the attempt at rescue the proper choice. 

 

 

Someone else with real quotes from Rand should chime in here... I don't have any handy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, a person who has low self esteem, and who is having difficulty obtaining her values will probably lack the will to keep track of their healthy habits. That is correct. I understand that these fundamental necessities aren't a given, they are values one has to gain/keep if they want to remain alive. My point is that THESE are the values that directly affect one's survival. The "end" of other values (such as a career, romantic love, luxuries) is not to remain alive but to derive pleasure/happiness from it.

 

If I ask you "why did you eat that dessert?" or "why did you attend that play?", you will not answer: "I did it in order to remain alive", but rather: "because It allows me to enjoy my life more".

I would say that, sure, but as I was saying it, I would prepare for the next why. And I would be very disappointed if you didn't ask that next why, and just took my assertion that enjoyment should be a goal as a fact of reality.

In slightly fancier terms, the chain of whys shouldn't end with a normative claim. Normative claims should be built on descriptive claims (describing reality), using logic.

 

Every time I discuss and think about this issue, it gets more and more clear to me that the ultimate goal (which all other lesser goals are means to) is not merely to remain alive but to enjoy your time alive and be happy. Obviously remaining alive is a precondition, but merely remaining alive is not the ultimate goal.

Ok, that's a statement about your beliefs. But so would be Mohamed Atta's statement declaring that he is more and more convinced that his goal in life is to martyr himself for his cause.

The question is, can you offer a better reason for your beliefs than Mohamed Atta could? Could you convince a rational person (just to make sure we're on the same page, a rational person is someone who uses logic applied to the observable facts of reality as the ultimate arbiter of what is true, including what is right or wrong) to agree with you?

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are over-simplifying human nature. did the same.P.S. My second argument isn't as strong as the first, and there's a lot less empiri the expense of the first point I made.

Sorry Nicky, I wrecked your great statement. You solved the gentleman's misunderstanding when you told him he overimplified the meaning of remaining alive.

You said it beautifully but he didn't grasp it.

Let me try: "Remaining alive" is not just keeping my body on a life support machine.

Life, the ultimate goal, includes all the lesser goals because it makes them possible.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Life makes all the other goals possible but its not the end of other goals. You don't have sex because you want to live longer. You don't read a great novel because it will extend your life. You do the things you do because they are pleasurable, they make you happy. 

 

Life, the ultimate goal, includes all the lesser goals because it makes them possible. 

 

Of course life makes all goals possible. If you are dead you cant achieve values. But LIFE, as in remaining alive (and by that I mean that your heart and mind are functioning), cannot be the ultimate goal. Its a prerequisite. Does anybody see that too? 

 

Let me try to explain using logic. 

 

Premise 1: Objectivism says that "remaining alive is the goal of all values", therefore the ultimate goal (OPAR chapter 6).

 

Premise 2: I am alive, eating my food, sleeping well, drinking water and exercising regularly.

 

Conclusion: therefore I have reached the ultimate goal, I just need to keep doing the above and thats it. Why would I pursue other values if I have reached the ultimate goal? 

 

The problem with the above is that just doing the few actions required to remain alive does not mean that the person will be happy. And if the person is not happy, why bother to be alive?

Edited by MarceloMartins
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember too that Rand was addressing religion's supposed monopoly on values.  Christians (and others) argue that without God's commandments, there would be no way to form an objective ethical code and we would all live in anarchy.  What Rand observed is that a value system which results in the death of the practitioner is something of an evolutionary dead-end.  If we all held values that resulted in our demise, then there would be no one around to even discuss values. From this, she makes the argument that the furtherance of the life of the individual practitioner is the foundation upon which values must rest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Life makes all the other goals possible but its not the end of other goals. You don't have sex because you want to live longer. You don't read a great novel because it will extend your life. You do the things you do because they are pleasurable, they make you happy. 

 

 

Of course life makes all goals possible. If you are dead you cant achieve values. But LIFE, as in remaining alive (and by that I mean that your heart and mind are functioning), cannot be the ultimate goal. Its a prerequisite. Does anybody see that too? 

 

Let me try to explain using logic. 

 

Premise 1: Objectivism says that "remaining alive is the goal of all values", therefore the ultimate goal (OPAR chapter 6).

 

Premise 2: I am alive, eating my food, sleeping well, drinking water and exercising regularly.

 

Conclusion: therefore I have reached the ultimate goal, I just need to keep doing the above and thats it. Why would I pursue other values if I have reached the ultimate goal? 

 

The problem with the above is that just doing the few actions required to remain alive does not mean that the person will be happy. And if the person is not happy, why bother to be alive?

I recognize your frustration, and your logic is 'right, but wrong'. To break out of this impasse, conceive of a life as open-ended:

i.e., man as a hierarchical being.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marcelo:

Should have done it first, but now I've read your OP (which I largely agree with on quantity and quality of life) I'm wondering if you've taken one quote out of context. I don't have OPAR, so for comparison with that "An organism's life is the standard of value..." I will refer to VoS.

Rand writes "A plant's life has no choice of action...Its life is the standard of value directing its actions".[...]

"...it acts automatically to further its life, it cannot act for its own destruction."

Whereas, for man's life, a few pages on (p.25):

"The Objectivist ethics holds man's life as the ~standard~ of value -- and ~his own life~ as the ethical purpose of every individual man.

"The difference between ~standard~ and ~purpose~ in this context is as follows: a standard is an abstract principle that serves as a measurement or gauge to guide a man's choices in the achievement of a concrete specific purpose. "That which is required for the survival of man qua man" is an abstract principle that applies to every individual man.

The task of applying this principle to a concrete, specific purpose--the purpose of living a life proper to a rational being--

belongs to every individual man, and the life he has to live is his own."

MM, you see the distinctions? A plant's life (as single organism) is its own standard of value.

But man (as all men, ever and in general) all possess a common standard of value, while each SINGLE man has to find his own purpose. The abstraction, "standard", belongs to all, the specific, "purpose", to the one. Between purpose and standard is a hierarchy of values (as I see it) for the individual alone to select and discover -- always against the background concept of *man's standard of value*. In action, what a person has now -in concepts, virtues and values- rests upon what he had before, and presupposes what he has yet to gain.(Additionally, man can indeed act like no other life can, for his "own destruction.")

The "organism's life" quote from OPAR is ambiguous, most likely out of context, and it may have started you off wrongly.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course life makes all goals possible. If you are dead you cant achieve values.

True. Objectivism -- specifically and philosophically -- does not say value life because it is a pre-requisite. Life is a pre-requisite to almost every other philosophy too: the Franciscan has to stay alive as a pre-requisite to helping others; the Nazi has to stay alive as a pe-requisite to serving the state; etc.

But LIFE, as in remaining alive (and by that I mean that your heart and mind are functioning), cannot be the ultimate goal. Its a prerequisite. Does anybody see that too?

Take the most basic value: food, air, water. They are a pre-requisite to staying alive, and yet being alive is a pre-requisite to procuring such values. So, even at that level, it is not a contradiction to say that one breathes to stay live. But, I figure you agree with this already. Your main question was about less obvious values that make one happy.

Essentially -- at a biological/psychological level -- for a human consciousness to function best, the human must feel that life is truly worth living.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MarceloMartin, while I have not read Dr Peikoff's book, I have read a great many of Rand's, and some, many times over. I wish I could direct you to the exact reference in your book that might help as an answer. As I understand your question, you are trying to distinguish the difference between (1) merely staying alive, as an inmate at some hypothetical sanctuary, and (2) living a life of luxury.

May I submit an item not found in Objectivism: Maslow's hierarchy of needs. I regard Maslow's hierarchy to be quite useful. I believe it creates no conflict with Objectivism, in that, the ultimate goal of self-actualization is comparable to "man as a heroic being."

If you are unfamiliar with 'the hierarchy,' please refer to it; let me know what you think.

May I guess that Dr Peikoff is including all that life has to offer as the essence of being alive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... the exact reference in your book that might help as an answer.

I think the main reference is Rand's essay "The Objectivist Ethics". I believe this transcript is the same as was published in the book. Maybe I'm being obvious, but since the OP mentioned OPAR and not "Virtue of Selfishness" I thought I'd link this, just in case.

 

In addition, I think the first few essays of "The Romantic Manifesto" also address the OP's question. In asking why man needs art, one is forced to address the link between life and such "higher", more abstract values.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might be off a bit on this, but in reading your posts you seem to focus and/or get hung up on the word "ultimate".  It's probably worth noting that while the word ultimate indicates a "hierarchy"  it's important to understand that in Objectivism, a "hierarchy" is epistemological and not ontological - and that it is always contextual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks everyone for your thoughts on the subject. 

 

I think that this statement basically solves out debate: "May I guess that Dr Peikoff is including all that life has to offer as the essence of being alive." (thanks Repairman).

It doesn't solve anything. It's just vague speculation, and embracing it is rationalization on your part. (Besides, "pleasure" or "happiness" aren't the essence of life. The vast majority of living organisms have neither of those attributes. The essence of life is that it's a self sustaining, self replicating process.)

Ayn Rand's words on the other hand are not vague on this. In her philosophy, life is the standard. Life is the ultimate value. Not life and everything it has to offer. Just life. Everything life has to offer is the means to achieve that ultimate value:

Without an ultimate goal or end, there can be no lesser goals or means: a series of means going off into an infinite progression toward a non–existent end is a metaphysical and epistemological impossibility. It is only an ultimate goal, an end in itself, that makes the existence of values possible. Metaphysically, life is the only phenomenon that is an end in itself: a value gained and kept by a constant process of action.

Epistemologically, the concept of “value” is genetically dependent upon and derived from the antecedent concept of life. To speak of “value” as apart from “life” is worse than a contradiction in terms. “It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible”

In answer to those philosophers who claim that no relation can be established between ultimate ends or values and the facts of reality, let me stress that the fact that living entities exist and function necessitates the existence of values and of an ultimate value which for any given living entity is its own life. Thus the validation of value judgments is to be achieved by reference to the facts of reality. The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. So much for the issue of the relation between “is” and “ought”.

Now in what manner does a human being discover the concept of “value”? By what means does he first become aware of the issue of good or evil in its simplest form? By means of the physical sensations of pleasure or pain. Just as sensations are the first step to the development of a human consciousness in the realm of cognition, so they are its first step in the realm of evaluation.

The capacity to experience pleasure or pain is innate in a man’s body: it is part of his nature, part of the kind of entity he is. He has no choice about it, and he has no choice about the standard that determines what will make him experience the physical sensation of pleasure or of pain. What is that standard? His life.

It goes on. Please, read the full essay: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ari_ayn_rand_the_objectivist_ethics

P.S. I'm not asking you to agree. Just don't declare the issue solved, based on what Repairman himself called A GUESS. There's plenty of time to solve it based on further understanding of Rand's arguments. The essence of Ethics isn't something that you should hurry to solve in two days.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's also important to note that nothing in Objectivism suggests that one MUST choose life. There's no ethical obligation to make that choice. Objectivism simply states that that choice is the fundamental one (it is the one real choice one has - all other choices boil down to this one)

In other words, it's not always wrong to reject life. But it is always wrong to choose life and reject food. Or choose life and reject joy. Etc., etc. To sum up all those et ceteras, it is wrong to treat something other than life as one's ultimate/fundamental value. If you're gonna reject a rational value, be aware that what you're rejecting is life itself (and just cut to the chase). If you're gonna embrace life, be aware that that implies embracing all rational values.

Just because life is the ultimate value (meaning that all the other values are derived from it, using reason), doesn't mean that we don't CHOOSE life BECAUSE we enjoy it, and that we don't REJECT life BECAUSE we hate it (or at least, that that can't be one of our reasons for wanting to live - there are others of course).

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By making life my ultimate goal, my standard of value and the top of my heirarchy of values, it becomes a determining factor when considering whether something is a value, and if so, where it belongs on my heirarchy.

I ask myself, is music a value?

Yes, because it fuels my consciousness to do the things necessary to remain alive. And as the type of enjoyment that's an end in itself, music makes life (the ultimate end in itself), worth living.

Years ago, I enjoyed drugs. They were at the top of my heirarchy of values, because remaining alive wasn't my standard of values. Now it is. I'm clean.

The desire to remain alive isn't automatic. I've met people who have no desire to live but lack the courage to kill themselves.

Enjoyment isn't as vital as air, food, & water, when it comes to "remaining alive," but it is a part of it. A conceptual consciousness requires more than an animal's form of a life-support system to stay alive.

I'm not trying to spin "remaining alive" to mean more than was meant. I want to prove that it must be a rational man's standard of value, & his ultimate goal, when judging values and non-values.

That which furthers my life is good.

The continuation of my life is my objective standard for discerning my heirarchy of values. Air, food and water are at the top. Music isn't far below them, because it motivates me to go on living.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If you're gonna embrace life, be aware that that implies embracing all rational values.

Isn't this a bit like saying: Above all things, value your life and "all that it has to offer"?

I realize context matters greatly, but in general, we're saying the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...